register the guns with the people who buy them and make those people liable if crimes are committed with the weapons registered to them unless they are reported as stolen before they are identified as being used for those crimes

Also, the violence problem associated with both the drug war and prohibition was a gun violence problem.

You'd also have to close all of the gun show loopholes, which I am totally in favor of. There's really no way to stop two individuals from selling each other guns, but by making it a felony to do so, you might at least taper it off a bit.

Another idea is to perhaps make the seller of any illegally sold gun a party to any crimes committed with it. That might make people think twice before selling a gun to a guy they barely know.

register the guns with the people who buy them and make those people liable if crimes are committed with the weapons registered to them unless they are reported as stolen before they are identified as being used for those crimes

Also, the violence problem associated with both the drug war and prohibition was a gun violence problem.

Click to expand...

Below are the Connecticut hand gun laws. How well did they work in this case? The problem lies within mental testing,IMO. The threshold to determine if somebody has "mental capacity" or not is very low.

It is unlawful to sell or permanently transfer a handgun to any person who is forbidden to possess a handgun, or to a person under 21.

No person, firm, or corporation shall sell or transfer any pistol or revolver unless an application provided by the Commissioner of Public Safety is filled out. There is a 2 week waiting period from the date of the application.

A handgun eligibility certificate, valid for five years, shall be issued by the Commissioner of Public Safety within 60 days after receipt of the National Criminal History Records check from the FBI to a person who may lawfully possess a handgun, who completes a handgun safety course, is fingerprinted, and pays a fee.

You'd also have to close all of the gun show loopholes, which I am totally in favor of. There's really no way to stop two individuals from selling each other guns, but by making it a felony to do so, you might at least taper it off a bit.

Another idea is to perhaps make the seller of any illegally sold gun a party to any crimes committed with it. That might make people think twice before selling a gun to a guy they barely know.

Click to expand...

why shouldnt an individual be able to sell guns privately? Should you not be able to sell cars privately as well? How can you track who sold the gun (privately) to a criminal? Numbers can be rubbed off.

There is no good answer to gun control. Chicago tried to put the clamps down on gun control, and the death rate by shooting went up.

You really think that you are going to stop someone from committing these heinous acts by preventing them from getting a gun? If they really want a gun, they are going to find a way to get one and commit the crime.

According to the link below, only a fraction of one percent of murders are committed by someone who legally purchases a gun, and that most of those murders are due to a gun in the household that is intended for self-protection ends up being used as weapon in a domestic dispute.

It also says that only 6% of murders are committed with a gun that was purchased legally to begin with, but that the person that is committing the crime didn't actually purchase the gun legally. They traded it for drugs or other forms of payment including money.

Just like the war on drugs, the war on guns would not work and would cost a stupid amount of money. How are you going to get all the guns off the street that are already out there now? Don't we already try to get guns off the street that are in the hands of criminals and guns that are purchased illegally? Clearly it doesn't work.

Over 90% of violence with firearms occurs with illegally possessed weapons....so how is banning folks from getting weapons legally have to do with anything?

Gun control debate has to be on the most short sighted, moronic topics that pops up after every one of these tragedies.

The only thing gun control promotes is that the people that commit crimes will be the ones with the weapons and not legally carrying persons.

Facts: States with right to carry see a decrease in violent crimes with firearms of 20-25%. Those same states see murders decrease by nearly 20%.

Guns purchased at gun shows account for less than 2% of crimes committed with a firearm.

You have to pass a background check to be able to purchase a firearm. You cannot have a mental disability to purchase a firearm.

Gun control has proven time and time and time and time and time again that it has nothing to do with instances like these.

It does not stop the underlying issue. People that want to obtain illegally possessed firearms are and will still be out there no matter how much constraint you put on a law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm.

People need to realize that there are crazy people out there. Mankind is laced with a history of violence. The bigger issue is that people feel they can change laws to change the DNA of a human being. It is NEVER going to be a peaceful society. These things will ALWAYS happen. Ethnic cleansing was occurring withing the last 30 years, millions of people were executed less than 100 years ago, slavery still exists to this day. Where and why people feel they are ever going to live in dreamland are so oblivious to what goes on in the world today.

You are not going to stop gun violence with gun control. You have to stop criminals from possessing illegally obtained weapons...which are not being swapped up at gun shows (lulz at that by the way, lulz!!!!!! wow... :chuckles

Have a real debate....what can you do to stop the mass amount of weapons that enter this country illegally. Mexico supplies a huge amount of those weapons. How many weapons pass through customs on a daily basis?

The assailant used two 9mm handguns he obtained from his mother, probably by stealing them. Those firearms wouldn't be banned under the Brady Bill, and are considered completely within the realm of home defense. The AR-15 he had was also hers, not his. It would've been banned under the Brady Bill, however, it should be noted, he left it in his car and it was not used to kill 26 people.

What I've noticed is that when people suggest we should start limiting access to firearms, usually, they are compromising a personal belief in a fairly strict ban on all firearms. If that's your personal opinion, then fine. It isn't mine, though. I also don't think a person should needlessly be subjected to a mental health screening in order to exercise his/her rights.

Guys, why do we have access to firearms in this country? What is the root reason? And no, it has nothing to do with hunting.

Firearms allow families to protect themselves, from would-be criminals, invaders, or tyrants. It's a very important aspect of maintaining a free society. I am the father of 3 children, 1 of whom is in elementary school the other in middle school. It hits home when I see school shootings on television. But what is also frightening is the thought that my kids my grow up in a country that doesn't understand the very freedoms so many fought and died to protect. That society has become so complacent with absentee citizenry that we no longer value what it means to be "Man." Ideas such as honor, dignity, integrity, country, and yes, God.

I just feel so much has been lost, culturally, that we've degenerated into something less than a civil society and something more like a hosh-posh of loosely interconnected people more focused on media and consumerism rather than life. I think shootings like these are a result of mentally unstable individuals looking to be heard in a society that they can neither adapt to or cope with.

Lastly, regarding the killer, he walked into this situation with absolutely no intention of walking out. He could have just as easily filled a truck with fertilizer and completely destroyed the entire school. He could have strangled his mother to death. There are a myriad of ways this could have played out. But what so many people are missing, simply because they want to find a vehicle for their ideological agenda, and I don't mean that condescendingly, is that the assailant was so determined in his mission that he was fully prepared to take his own life. That is a man that cannot be stopped. No matter what laws are enacted or so-called preventative measures are taken, he would have killed his mother and those kids today. The total fatalities may have been lower, or they may have been higher. But one thing that we know from history is that a person intent on suicide (ask any Israeli) can certainly get past whatever security measures are in place to make his statement clear.

How many of those 90 percent were at one time legally owned guns which were stolen and put back out on to the street?

Do you seriously want to subject us to the bullshit excuse that Americans are somehow more homicidal by nature and thus cannot fathom the prevention of guns to our citizens?

I'm sorry, but the United Kingdom has a similar problem with drugs and violent crimes with a gun have decreased to almost non-existant levels since they banned firearms.

Don't tell me "we're not the United Kingdom," the only reason we aren't is because we have no interest in decreasing gun violence when weapons are a multi-billion dollar industry in this country.

There is absolutely ZERO reason you cannot prevent guns in increments, banning assault weapons (why the fuck are these legal anyway) is a great start, they have absolutely no place in the hands of citizens.

With how attached this country is to guns, I have no problem knowing that it will take years, decades even to clear the streets and do it in increments.

On a last note, I think the coverage by MSNBC today has been absolutely annoying. All they are talking about, nonstop, is gun control. "Changing gun laws in this country."

No gun law that has ever been even reasonably proposed in this country would have prevented Adam Lanza from obtaining two 9-mm semi-automatic handguns from his mother... Nothing outside of a complete firearm ban would have stopped her, a school teacher (AFAIK) with a spotless criminal record, from legally purchasing two handguns that have totally legitimate home defense purposes.

I also have a problem with how they're characterizing Lanza's AR-15. Using terms like "NATO rounds" without explaining what that means, or going into detail that the .223 round is extremely common and mostly used for hunting. If he had it retooled for .308 would it be somehow more or less scary? And MSNBC is only mentioning in passing, like CNN, continuing to use the term "M4." Was it really an M4? Pretty sure it was an AR-15, a simple Bushmaster bought at your local sporting goods store that was labelled "M4*" being M4-like in the shortened barrel and retractable stock. But it's not an M4, which is illegal in most states, and AFAIK, illegal in Connecticut due to a barrel length of only 14.5 inches. Most states, like Hawaii for instance, do not allow SBRs (short-barrel rifles), that being a barrel shorter than 16".

But obviously the media is playing up the agenda. It's just kinda sick.

Comparing other countries to the USA is completely asinine as well. Most of these countries are the size of Texas or Alaska.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Japan has 130 million people.

In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

Click to expand...

Save for the fact that Japan is roughly six times the size of Texas, it had 10.9 deaths per 100,000 residents.

It's time to stop pretending taking guns off the street is some sort of impossibility because they're so commonplace now. Ignore for the fact that most other, more intelligent countries have banned these killers decades ago and put in place the most stringent laws for those who do not obey.

It's time to do something. Our citizens are dying by the thousands because of guns, there is no knife death epidemic in Japan or the United Kingdom. There is no baseball bat death epidemic in Japan or the United Kingdom.

Guns are as complicit in murders as the psychos who fire them, or those who discharge them accidentally in horrible accidents.

Go talk to the families of 18 innocent children and tell them that "we just aren't Japan" when telling them why we can't ban guns in this country. Go tell them that they would have died anyway had this man been wielding a knife, or a bat, or a catapult.

Do you seriously want to subject us to the bullshit excuse that Americans are somehow more homicidal by nature and thus cannot fathom the prevention of guns to our citizens?

Click to expand...

You're conflating two different ideas. That Americans are probably more homicidal, by nature (I think this is actually true), and that America cannot prevent the proliferation of guns. There are many reasons for both issues and they are somewhat interconnected, but I don't think anyone is saying that because our society is more violent that we cannot ban guns.

I'm sorry, but the United Kingdom has a similar problem with drugs and violent crimes with a gun have decreased to almost non-existant levels since they banned firearms.

Click to expand...

I had a similar debate in another thread with another poster. They mentioned the UK. IIRC, what I found was that while gun-related violence went down, violent crime still increased proportionately over time. In other words, the firearm ban did not decrease the incidence or rate of increase of violent crime per capita, it just decreased the number of violent crimes committed with firearms.

There is absolutely ZERO reason you cannot prevent guns in increments, banning assault weapons (why the fuck are these legal anyway) is a great start, they have absolutely no place in the hands of citizens.

Click to expand...

Because you don't see value in something doesn't mean it has no value. I own an AR-15, and two handguns. I see value in each. They serve a purpose. You know what my reasons are, you're not stupid, yet you simply discount my values. I feel a need to protect my home, my family, and my freedom from anyone who might attempt to threaten those things I hold most dear. Why is it that I must sacrifice my freedom to protect myself and my loved ones for your sense of false security?

With how attached this country is to guns, I have no problem knowing that it will take years, decades even to clear the streets and do it in increments.

Click to expand...

And in such a future, you envision streets that aren't filled with criminals? I'll tell you something Boobie.. Only way that happens, is if politicians and bankers stop raping the middle/working class people in this country and squeezing us for all we're worth. Maybe if there was some socioeconomic justice and a fair shake in America, especially in the inner city, then there would be less incidence of violent or gang related crime.

But with all that said, none of it probably has anything to do with Adam Lanza killing 20 kids.

There are no easy solutions to stopping violence. Most people think "if we do X, then we can stop or reduce Y", forgetting the letters A-W also have effects on any situation. If we stopped the war on drugs, gun violence would go down because there wouldn't be incentive to deal now illegal drugs. No one on the news is mentioning that today. I know that is different from a mentally unstable person getting guns and killing kids.

One problem I see is many public and government buildings, it is illegal to carry firearms, or even have in your car on property. If a teacher and a janitor had conceal permits and were carrying, there is a chance that less than 20 some odd people would have died today.

Someone who has a mental illness that is not being correctly treated could just as well run people down in a car, drown her kids in a lake, or stab random strangers. Guns do have a rapid multiplier compared to those other options.

I'm not necessarily tied to one ideal on the matter, as I said I'm cognizant of the fact that whatever steps that are taken will inevitably have to be accepted in incremental steps until a goal is achieved. Likewise, what I would prefer and what I find realistic are probably two different things entirely.

You're conflating two different ideas. That Americans are probably more homicidal, by nature (I think this is actually true), and that America cannot prevent the proliferation of guns. There are many reasons for both issues and they are somewhat interconnected, but I don't think anyone is saying that because our society is more violent that we cannot ban guns.

Click to expand...

At this point, I don't believe our society is more homicidal by nature. While Japan and to some extent, the UK, have more peaceful societies that in my opinion is a CHOICE made by our citizens. It's indoctrinated into our society but not necessarily our human nature.

Because you don't see value in something doesn't mean it has no value. I own an AR-15, and two handguns. I see value in each. They serve a purpose. You know what my reasons are, you're not stupid, yet you simply discount my values. I feel a need to protect my home, my family, and my freedom from anyone who might attempt to threaten those things I hold most dear. Why is it that I must sacrifice my freedom to protect myself and my loved ones for your sense of false security?

Click to expand...

It isn't a sense of false security, it's security in the same manner you would feel if you didn't have to worry about armed insurgents entering your residence.

I think there are two different sets of values when talking about gun owners, tradition and protection. I'm not blind to those values, but when you're working toward a bigger goal of safety for all citizens of this country. Where I agree with you wholeheartedly is in the thought that our cultural diversity makes this goal all the more difficult. There is a clear race problem in this country, cultural biases which trump any other nations. Whether we first need to eliminate our own bias before we eliminate the need for our citizens to be armed is certainly up for debate, but both must be done away with before our society can work towards a goal of decreasing violence.

And in such a future, you envision streets that aren't filled with criminals? I'll tell you something Boobie.. Only way that happens, is if politicians and bankers stop raping the middle/working class people in this country and squeezing us for all we're worth. Maybe if there was some socioeconomic justice and a fair shake in America, especially in the inner city, then there would be less incidence of violent or gang related crime.

Click to expand...

On this, we agree. But in a perfect world we're giving that job to well armed, well funded and larger police departments.

I really dont see the difference between a cop having a gun and a US citizen who is not a cop having a gun. Police states are prone to corruption im not sure of the purpose of creating a situation where americans are subject to potentially more abuse of power than what they already are.

My issue with gun control and any government restrictions on our rights, is when is enough. Americans fought for their right to be free. Freedom is not free, there is hardship in being free. If you want to live in a state where you are 100% safe, then go to go a country where you have no personal freedoms.